Yeah, I worked for startups in Silicon Valley for 20 years, when I see Key, the way he talks and his body language, I see every marketing guy I ever worked with - their job is not to tell the truth it's to sell stuff. It's worse than that, on the GCSB thing I see that marketing guy who doesn't know his product, who keeps throwing out pitches to see if they'll stick
The way you can tell if these guys are lying is easy, you check to see if their lips are moving, it's their job
This isn't the first time it's come up - there seems to be a growing trend of petty nationalism (and racism, and sexism) across the majority of western democracies, at least since the GFC, and in direct reversal of what had seemed to be a trend away from nationalism in the decade prior. It's an interesting and depressing trend.
I could best think of it as a pale imitation of the Weimar effect, where a collapsed middle class becomes angry and confused enough to start voting in political extremists. The only big thing missing is the hyperinflation.
I have expanded on why I like Key, why he is good for you and me.
Page 4 of the PA topic "2014. The Meth Election"
Best you read that and that would have spared the need for any pompous lecturing....a la accusing me of making "bald-faced conclusions".
Do your homework.
Here we go again. Another bleater resorting to personal abuse. Likening engaging with me to "wrestling with a pig, getting dirty and running away."
Why do you adhere to Russell's plea to "keep it nice."
I have and never get snarky first. Lift your game nzlemming.
Again I say, even blind Freddie could see that what annoys my detractors the most is my unequivocal support for what John Key offers.
That's what irritates the likes of nzlemming and rich lock and cjm etc etc the most
Should read "Why don't you adhere to Russell's plea to" etc......
[early morning fuzziness]
You can go back and edit your posts on this site (within a 15-minute window), rather than multiplying them.
As you say -- do your homework...
I have expanded on why I like Key, why he is good for you and me..
Thanks for thinking of me. However, this thing I heard him say on the radio during a conversation about our economy: " we are using robots in out meat works"
The context of this is him trying to bump up enthusiasm and patriotic fervor for the punching above the belt stuff. What he said was poppy cock. Food processing factory's in New Zealand do use robotic technology - otherwise known as automation technology - which is part of the conveyer belt factory system that's been around since the American industrial revolution. The so called 'robots' we use in our economy is by and large, imported from of the shelf machinery. The bulk of what makes food processing happen in New Zealand, are low waged workers from provincial towns.
If he had said that our economy consists of making technology an important part of primary education, rather than being obsessed with measuring our children's ability to pass reading/writing and arithmetic tests prescribed to there age range.
I might be a little less inclined to right him of as being full of shit.
Y'know, I do get the cultural relevance of the National party. I know that we all different dreams, aspirations and ideals. And that previous National governments have been fear enough custodians. But can I put it to you, that this National government is actually bung.
Just one small comment of spying. Terrorists don't have to even use telephones, let alone the internet. They can plan hideous crimes that scare the bejezus out of us. And now that we all know about NSA, the really bad buggers probably just conspire to blow things up, like the American mafia do on TV.
Do your homework.
So, you don't appear to be able to recognise a genuine attempt to engage in reasonably good faith (my second, in case you were keeping score), and your response is, to say the least, unecessarily aggro and combative.
I'm done with you. I look forward to when you step over the line and get banned again. Probably won't take too long.
The Second paragraph, of Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Gallagher’s piece New Zealand Launched Mass Surveillance Project While Publicly Denying It states:
Documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden show that the government worked in secret to exploit a new internet surveillance law enacted
Exploit, not violate
completion of Speargun was “awaiting new GCSB Act expected July 2013
Why was there a delay? What benefit did the passing of this law serve in rubber-stamping mass surveillance of New Zealanders?
What significant events occured in July 2013 beyond the release of the full Xkeyscore revelation on the 31st followed by confirmation of its veracity by Former NSA Chief Michael Hadyn just a week later?
Does the NSA really operate a vast database that allows its analysts to sift through millions of records showing nearly everything a user does on the Internet, as was recently reported? Yes, and people should stop worrying and learn to love it, according former NSA chief Gen. Michael Hayden.
In that period, July 22nd also saw the release of this story:
Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly said she knew nothing about American surveillance activities in Germany. But documents seen by SPIEGEL show that German intelligence cooperates closely with the NSA
So in a very short period we had evidence and certifiable verification that Xkeystroke existed and – as shown on Snowden’s XKeystroke maps – was located in New Zealand.
And then the bill was very noisily passed
At a Moment of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbps1EwAW-0\Truth, following Grenwald’s a lengthy and wry rebuttal of Prime Minister Key, Snowden began his presentation by declaring:
"I think one of the key things to get out in the beginning, is to say, when The Prime Minister is making these statements about there is no mass surveillance, peopple can disagree what it’s about and what it’s not, you’re always entitled to your own opinions not your own facts.
In a subsequent interview with Glenn Grenwald Russell Brown asked:
So what drives that growth?[of intelligence agencies]
I think that one of the things that has happened is that military structures in general have insulated themselves from the political process. And the kinds of claims that are made to justify their growth, whether putting people in fear of terrorism or other kinds of threats, are very powerful tools. No politician wants to be seen as making the country less safe, or to be vulnerable to claims that they stood in the way of the security of citizens. And these agencies are very good at manipulating public discourse to make sure that they’re continually fed greater authority and greater budgetary support – and just generally allowed to operate without much interference from political officials.
Why was John Key such a focus of Moment of truth? Chancellor Angela Merkel repeatedly denied having had knowledge of NSA activity. What has compelled this adolescent and internationally derided response to the emergence of this story?
What prompted Herald journalist Derek Cheng to claim the day before Moment of Truth, on September 14th, on Twitter:
"John Key told me in private that they are granting Dotcom residency despite pushback from officials about his criminal past.” #rpt
What was Key’s role in the alleged pressure applied by the Government to fastrack Dotcom’s residency application:
In the documents, an SIS agent wrote to another on October 22, 2010, saying: “INZ [Immigration NZ] has phoned me to advise that the INZ CEO [Nigel Bickle] is questioning why this case is on hold. Apparently there is some ‘political pressure’ to process this case."
When comparing the 2003 GCSE Bill with it’s amendment there are numerous changes. Greenwald’s document implies that at least some of the changes must be prerequisite to implementing SPEARGUN. But which?
Promininent criticis of the bill have found faults with the law vis a vis Mass Surveillance, Blogger No Right Turn:
(and again, no warrant on a New Zealander for intelligence purposes is lawful) is a crime. So, GCSB staff trained in XKEYSCORE: congratulations, you’re all criminals.
Thomas Beagle of Tech Liberty NZ provides a detailed throrough analysis of the bill:
Section 16 of the GCSB Act also allows certain forms of spying without a warrant or access authorisation. However, the bill adds section 16(1A) which says that this cannot be done for the purpose of intercepting the communications of New Zealanders. (See the notes below about metadata and incidentally gained intelligence.)
With the caveate:
Metadata – There are a number of places in the bill that put limits on intercepting “private communications”, but in the past the GCSB has interpreted that as only including the actual call, not the related data (e.g. when, who, how long, etc). Does this mean that the GCSB still thinks it can collect this metadata without a warrant or access authorisation? The bill is silent on this issue.
Here, I’m suggesting that It’s this “private communications” that deserves some attention. in the Preliminary Provisions of the 2003 Act, Section 4 defines:
private communication —
(a) means a communication between 2 or more parties made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but
(b) does not include a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so</q>
This is the same in the latest Reprint as at 26 September 2013.
So what has changed? A Stuff Poll entitled What do you think of claims Kiwis have been misled about mass surveillance? [jpg below] surveyed a total of 1639 votes. The findings:
-This is an attack on our privacy
725 votes 44.2%
-I don’t believe it
215 votes 13.1%
-In the age of terrorism it’s an unfortunate necessity
699 votes 42.6%
Only 13.1% polled disbelieve these claims presented By the Guardian, Edward Snowden, Glenn Grenward, Michael Hadyn, Kim DotCom, Laila Harre and Julian Assange to the New Zealand public. The impact of these revelations as presented to New Zealanders at 2 very high profile webcast town hall meetings a year apart, on countless blogs, in News stories by widely respected journalists, and by World Leaders have confirmed, to most, the veracity of these facts.
So tangible is this new technology, that when we look back at the definition of “private communication” in both the 2003 GCSB Bill and it’s amendment we find that we now live in a world where the use of digital communication devices strongly qualifies as
a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so
It is no longer legally “private communication” and therefore (b) below is rendered redundant, as a matter of progress, no longer protected:
Section 16 amended (Certain interceptions permitted without interception warrant or computer access authorisation)
(1) In the heading to section 16, delete ““computer””.
(2) In section 16, before subsection (1), insert: (1A) This section—
“(a) applies to the interception of communications for the purpose of the Bureau’s functions in sections 8A and 8B; but
“(b) does not authorise anything to be done for the purpose of intercepting the private communications of a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand.”
(3) In section 16(1), delete ““foreign””.
(4) Replace section 16(2) with:
“(2) The Director, or an employee of the Bureau, or a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may, without an interception warrant, or, as the case requires, without an access authorisation, intercept communications by using an interception device or by accessing an information infrastructure, but only if—
“(a) the interception does not involve any activity specified in section 15(1); and
“(b) any access to an information infrastructure is limited to access to 1 or more communication links between computers or to remote terminals; and
“(c) the interception is carried out by the Director or with the authority of the Director for the purpose of performing the Bureau’s function in section 8A or 8B."
8A Information assurance and cybersecurity
8B Intelligence gathering and analysis
If we are the 86% of polled citizens that trust in the veracity of the surveillance claims, then we can’t also claim that our digital communications are safe from interception. But if we as citizens don’t believe these claims, we go online and don’t reasonably expect to be spied on, then any surveillance undertaken of us is due to our own recklessness.
I’m no lawyer though, and I’d rather not speculate as to the personalities involved in this issue 2 days out from an election.
Engaging in good faith does not mean accusing me of making "bald-faced statements" and "only at this party to annoy people."
That is patronising and pompous.
where's that "plonk" button?
No soup for you, Rich! One year! :)
Boil the discussion down, pick out the facts from the resultant mess.
- GCSB not allowed to intercept the private communication of NZers.
- GCSB shares information with 5eyes
Logically, JK could be factually correct. GCSB might not be doing the actual surveillance. But I haven’t heard any statements that show they are not using the data? JK as usual, acting like the alien shape-shifter he is.
I’m not the cleverest here and I might have missed a comment or two, but shouldn’t the questions, delivered to our country’s CEO/CIO oops PM, be along the lines of
“Is the GCSB, and/or other Government departments, monitoring New Zealand’s electronic data? If so, list the methods used.”
I have a few questions, asked in good faith.
Given the amount [or is that the thread] of Key-knocking, Key-criticism, Key-reviling, Key-patronising, Key-negativity, Key-accusations etc that permeate nearly each and every post on this site, either directly or indirectly, could somebody please tell me what would make a man who currently leads a party that rates at about 25% in most polls, a man who had approximately half the Labour caucus disapproving of his choice as leader, fit to lead this country?
I've scoured recent responses to all the topics related to the upcoming election and nowhere, as in NOWHERE, can I find one affirmation as to what would make Cunliffe a competent, credible, stability-sustaining leader.
I would have thought given the monumental amount of Key-bashing, somebody at some stage would have detailed the merits of Cunliffe as the only possible alternative to take command.
Anybody able to oblige? Anybody?
I’ve scoured recent responses to all the topics related to the upcoming election and nowhere, as in NOWHERE, can I find one affirmation as to what would make Cunliffe a competent, credible, stability-sustaining leader.
You scored responses. Is that all you have to offer?
Mr Cunliffe has chosen to run a positive campaign, prior to all of the dirty politics revelations, it would seem that he has avoided all the trouble Key and his followers have got themselves into by their bad behaviour.
At this point given Mr Key's past dealings with that vile Slater person and his complete inability to tell a story that doesn't change every day I don't see there's any way he could make a credible PM candidate.
Did you see what I just did? I just proved Cunliffe was the only viable candidate, and I didn't actually need to discuss Cunliffe's party or its policies, Key's many character flaws, combined with the make up of the various parties in the NZ MMP landscape make Cunnliffe the only viable PM - I'm not going to vote for his party because all I have to do is make sure he can form a coalition
Key convinced me last week that likely the best thing I can do for my country on Sat is vote for for IM, and I'll likely vote for them or the Greens, either way that's a vote against John and his continual eroding of my personal privacy
I was going to share my personal feelings about the interview on national radio, with Cunliffe. But I'm not going to now. Piss of Jake, you remind me of myself when I was a practicing alcoholic.
I’m not going to vote for his party because all I have to do is make sure he can form a coalition
Precisely. Me nether, and for my own personal reasons.
You want some more spin? I got a bunch;
a. A person commits a disorderly persons offense if he does any flagrantly lewd and offensive act which he knows or reasonably expects is likely to be observed by other non-consenting persons who would be affronted or alarmed
If you expose yourself in the knowledge that people may witness it, then you can be charged with lewdness.
If you, log onto the internet, then you can reasonably expect to be spied on by the NSA using XKeystroke and therefore going on the internet is the same as exposing yourself, because you’ve already been given the crash course in NSA capabilities. by The media, the net, Snowden, Greenwald, It was bought to your attention by the class clown and his foreign buddy.
In this XKeyscore/ NSA surveillance climate, accessing your device offers you the same level of protection from interception as would walking down the middle of the road offer protection from getting hit by a car.
You no longer qualify for the legal protection from interception as would say 2 people in a forest, :
The GCSB can’t legally intercept communication between two people in a forest because People in the forest can reasonably expect not to be monitored in a forest.
does not authorise anything to be done for the purpose of intercepting the private communications of a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand.
But the Bill could be read to states that is there is a perception of risk or surveillance, this communication no longer meets the Bill’s given definition of *private communication*
a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person
is not *private communication*
Grenwald said in his interview with Russell that most intelligence groups are generally quite independent from political machinations, Key might know nothing about the extent to which the magic loophole is being exploited.
And then the train crashes
Key convinced me last week that likely the best thing I can do for my country on Sat is vote for for IM,
BTW I sat down in the pub on Tuesday night with a bunch of coders, all people who deal with security in one way or another and I basically made this same point, every single person at the table said they'd come to the same conclusion
The GCSB can’t legally intercept communication between two people in a forest because People in the forest can reasonably expect not to be monitored in a forest.
Not even Te Urewera forest, I might add.
lewd and offensive act which he knows or reasonably expects is likely to be observed by other non-consenting persons who would be affronted or alarmed
Err, not quite sure what the point of your lewdness post is? Are you saying the NSA/GCSB are non-consenting observers?
You are a consenting provider, because you know the basic premise from 2 massively elaborate media extravaganzas, a year apart, drilling it in like primary school. Bringing some of the biggest names in the business/ country to ensure you and everyone you know gets the message, proving to you, beyond reasonable doubt that the internet can’t be deemed safe from surveillance
your base r us. .
They didn’t have to change the law, they only had to redefine reasonable expectations of privacy in the digital domain by showing you how shit *really* is. The whole media blitz, is churching to make sure everyone gets it
The simplicity of the moment of truth, 3 slides? was designed to have maximum emotional impact, and left in no uncertainty as to the supreme and total power the NSA and FYES has over your electronic life, Knowing how it works isn’t as important to them as knowing you know that now you belong to them anytime you’re online etc.